cesium wrote:A. FreeBSD doesn't use ALSA, but it's own sound system (the interface to it is OSSv3 API).

B. AFAICT, that comparison page was done by the main contributor to said soundsystem a while ago (That's why it doesn't mention FreeBSD 8 is out already).

C. You're right that the setup should be disclosed (for reproducability).

Many thanks for corrections!You see, it is not a rocket science, and we may clarify this problem step-by-step.

1. If a person publishes results of an experiments and does not disclose the setup, there should be a reason for this. What is obvious is that we are not invited to reproduce the experiment and question the validity of it.

2. There are many different algorithms of resampling. Some of them are more exact than others. It might be interesting to compare them, of course.

4. An algorithm might be very nice, but its implementation into ALSA might be awful. What is more, 24bit sound can be converted to 16bits, then resampled (in a terrible way), and then converted back to 24bit, as the Russian guru revealed.

You claim that:

cesium wrote: most people are/would be happy with current quality.

I have another opinion. In a word, several Russian users have already enabled "Production quality" with OSS4 and reported a dramatic improvement in sound quality.

No, but I want you to realize that this project (like most open-source) is limited by developer manpower, and that you've made your point. If you feel strongly about the issue, I'm sure the OSS developer community would be glad to accept any legitimate contributions you could make.

Temüjin wrote:No, but I want you to realize that this project (like most open-source) is limited by developer manpower, and that you've made your point. If you feel strongly about the issue, I'm sure the OSS developer community would be glad to accept any legitimate contributions you could make.

Dear Temüjin!

Many thanks for the invitation, but I have to learn something about Linux, before I would be able to contribute something useful. Perhaps, you may help me with learning as usual. You know, I prefer learning-by-doing, that is, solving practical problems.

In short, I do have a practical problem. I have already installed Arch Linux with OSS4. Everything seems to work, but the sound quality is very bad. I have already installed ABS and began to think how to recompile OSS4 to enable "Production quality".

You need simply to apply "sed" command with certain options before and after "configure" script.Just open PKGBUILD script with a text editor and add two commands.

"sed" command is explained here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SedQUOTE:"sed (stream editor) is a Unix utility that (a) parses text files and (b) implements a programming language which can apply textual transformations to such files."

If you know how to use sed (stream editor), you can easily fix this problem in Arch Linux.

A similar solution may work for Gentoo Linux.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To test this hypothesis, I made an experiment, that is, a simple hack.It can be easily reproduced.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The problem is already solved. I have already "Production quality" enabled on Arch Linux.OSS was recompiled and fixed.OSS package was created and installed.

well MIN 6,MAX 6 does result in FAST only. gentoo.5/6 ,same3/6 or 3/7 works on gentoo, highest SRC is 5, production NO PRECISION.

Setting 7 in configure, causes to set local_config to 3. You can edit that too, but 6 is the highest and is extra precision.Setting 6 in configure is enough for getting the highest possible at this time without need to change localconfig.

There is a different reason for getting only mode 5. With 3/6 or 3/7, highest is Production NO Precision.Mode 6 is disabled in the source because it causes crash.

feli33 wrote:well MIN 6,MAX 6 does result in FAST only. gentoo.5/6 ,same3/6 or 3/7 works on gentoo, highest SRC is 5, production NO PRECISION.

Setting 7 in configure, causes to set local_config to 3. You can edit that too, but 6 is the highest and is extra precision.Setting 6 in configure is enough for getting the highest possible at this time without need to change localconfig.

There is a different reason for getting only mode 5. With 3/6 or 3/7, highest is Production NO Precision.Mode 6 is disabled in the source because it causes crash.

Many thanks!

If I understood you correctly, there is a little hope to get "production quality with extra precision" in the near future. On the other hand, the so-called "production quality" (without extra precision) is certainly better than severely distorted sound with the so-called "High quality".

The good news is that "production quality" is easy to enable. Many thanks for the hint.

TO SUMMARIZE: No patch is needed to fix the oss package for Arch. One may simply add a proper sed command before "configure" in PKGBILD script. This command should correct the configure script "on the fly". To be fair, I have never used such magic tools, but it is rumoured that certain hackers know how to use sedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sed

I've just compiled OSSv4 versus 4.2 build 2003 with Production quality with a seemingly simple hint under Debian Lenny and Fedora 13 :From the original 4front gpl source package, first, as already known from you and cesium, simply edit "configure" file to put GRC_MAX_QUALITY to 7 but also...edit setup/srcconf.c (program that generate local_config.h) and change the line (#1281 in amd_64 package, but maybe different in others) :

I've just compiled OSSv4 versus 4.2 build 2003 with Production quality with a seemingly simple hint under Debian Lenny and Fedora 13 :From the original 4front gpl source package, first, as already known from you and cesium, simply edit "configure" file to put GRC_MAX_QUALITY to 7 but also...edit setup/srcconf.c (program that generate local_config.h) and change the line (#1281 in amd_64 package, but maybe different in others) :

About 6 and 7 I missed that you're right ! I've just tried and it's cool indeed.

For Arch, I will test it when I have more time (36 hours day ) I think. For the moment I'm fairly well on Debian and Fedora. Probably I'll try Arch on a VM once !I really find the pkgbuild a bit too complicated to me. I'm used to standard compilation or deb or rpm for the moment and not so a power user of them !

Thanks for the tips, really useful !

If anybody needs a 64 bits rpm for fedora 13 or a .deb for Debian Lenny with production quality on, then just ask, I'll be glad to give them !

I am completely ignorant in shell scripting and in Linux in general, and, nevertheless, I feel very comfortable with Arch. What you really need is ordinary common sense and a few Arch LiveCDs (to borrow some config files, or imitate some "working solutions"). It is very subjective, of course.

plmegalo wrote: Probably I'll try Arch on a VM once !

To try Arch on VM is the same as to smell flowers through a gas mask. Arch is "close to metal", first of all (you may smell it, if without a gas mask).

EDIT: What is crucial (for Arch) is common sense, because your freedom of choice is fundamentally restricted in the sense that you are forced to make choice yourself. If something does not work as it should, or it goes completely astray, you have to blame yourself, for it was your personal choice to do things in this or that way. To install Arch is a real challenge, and the nature of this challenge is rather psychological than technical. No special technical knowledge is required, but a kind of psychological training (a sort of radical Zen, or else) might be very helpful.

igorzwx wrote:Debian = Ubuntu = Fedora = SUSE (and so on), from the standpoint of the true believers in the Arch Way.

Looks like a troll ... About Arch or Gentoo or any, to my "common sense", the truth is that they are all linux distribs as others. Reminds me of some white people expression finding every black people look the same. Mainly look the same because we got a personal distance with them...What I think is that to have the choice is really to use what you feel comfortable with, not to use what "common sense" definition of one person intend to be a choice. I choose Debian (for the moment) as my main OS, because I only care about having freely what I need, using the simplest and shortest way to have the more stable and accurate softwares for my own usage. I'm not interested of philosophical consideration, sorry. To me, this is only about computers, machines, and what I only want is that they do what I need. For my own usage, Debian is largely as customizable as Arch, as any real Linux distribution can be. Even, if you want to crap it, you can (it's hard though ) !I know that Arch is talking about minimalistic and simplest way, but what looks like common sense to you is really a torturous way to me. Looking at the pkgbuild process is a good sample of what can be felt as simple for Arch user. I really find that compiling is more simple than that and surely nearer to the metal, as you say.I'm sorry to have to tell that Igor, but I'm a professional computer worker since more than 20 years (oooh yes ), mainly on IBM mainframes and though less on Unix systems, really I know that this is about all but poetry or philosophical considerations ! So this won't be a discussion with me Igor, let's state back to sound and mainly music, because these are more artistry !

igorzwx wrote:Debian = Ubuntu = Fedora = SUSE (and so on), from the standpoint of the true believers in the Arch Way.

Looks like a troll ... About Arch or Gentoo or any, to my "common sense", the truth is that they are all linux distribs as others. Reminds me of some white people expression finding every black people look the same. Mainly look the same because we got a personal distance with them...What I think is that to have the choice is really to use what you feel comfortable with, not to use what "common sense" definition of one person intend to be a choice. I choose Debian (for the moment) as my main OS, because I only care about having freely what I need, using the simplest and shortest way to have the more stable and accurate softwares for my own usage. I'm not interested of philosophical consideration, sorry. To me, this is only about computers, machines, and what I only want is that they do what I need. For my own usage, Debian is largely as customizable as Arch, as any real Linux distribution can be. Even, if you want to crap it, you can (it's hard though ) !I know that Arch is talking about minimalistic and simplest way, but what looks like common sense to you is really a torturous way to me. Looking at the pkgbuild process is a good sample of what can be felt as simple for Arch user. I really find that compiling is more simple than that and surely nearer to the metal, as you say.I'm sorry to have to tell that Igor, but I'm a professional computer worker since more than 20 years (oooh yes ), mainly on IBM mainframes and though less on Unix systems, really I know that this is about all but poetry or philosophical considerations ! So this won't be a discussion with me Igor, let's state back to sound and mainly music, because these are more artistry !

Perhaps, I was misunderstood. I did tell that I am completely ignorant in "computer science", and, therefore, I tend to rely on what I have (or believe to have), that is, common sense. I do not write those PKGBUILD scripts, and I do not understand them, or course. I take the ready ones and modify them, if I need. One may also compile in the traditional way, if he wants. However, it might be more convenient to have a package. There is a similar system for building packages (and packaging repositories) for Debian/Ubuntu (dev scripsts, etc.), but it seems to me much more difficult to use. It is my subjective opinion, of course, but you may try it, if you want. See, for example: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3375#p13624

EDIT: You may try an experiment:

1. Take a computer with at least 2GB RAM (you may need a lot of RAM, because everything will be installed to RAM; all these will vanish after reboot, of course).

2. Boot Ubuntu 10.04 LiveCD

3. Install dev-scripts, etc. (it may take about 500MB of RAM for installation)

You may create a repository for Debian and/or Ubuntu with recompiled OSS4 packages. Why not?

It seems that OSS4 packages are very easy to install on Ubuntu 10.04 from the official repository (there are in the universe repository). You may boot the LiveCD and install them (then, run osstest and so on). They will vanish after reboot, of course.

EDIT: Why not really OSS4 repository for Debian?The packages are actually ready. You may simply need to modify a few lines in the scripts.In a word, Temüjin is now maintaining the "audiohacks" PPA repository for Ubuntu.https://launchpad.net/~dtl131/+archive/ppaYou may try to ask him to explain how to create a similar repository for Debian. Why not?

EDIT: Even more simple! The packages are already in Debian repositories. What you need is simply to enable "Production quality".